It's hard to imagine all the little annoyances caused by the impromptu stop. When the Ministes left for this first stage they had just a few essential changes of clothes for life at sea ... What they had with them was simple and functional, but not necessarily ideally adapted to life ashore. The stopover in Gijon has changed the game, especially for those who were relying on their families to have things organised for them in Lanzarote at the end of this first leg.

...

This is the problem to have more than 80 boats racing in an a Transat and most of all have mixing top racers with amateurs. Sure it is very nice but that creates completely different rhythms and paces. How can they find a window if the + 80 boats will be in 3 or 4 days stretched on a huge area?

A decision has been made concerning the Mini Transat, already retarded for several weeks because of the bad weather conditions.
The fleet in Gijůn (most) will now sail to Sada (where a few proto’s already are) out of competition, an upwind coastal trip of 160 NM in still challenging conditions.

In order to give everybody at least 48 hours of rest afterwards, the new and actual start of the race in Sada is foreseen next week, on November 12th.

Most important: to save time and because the race is now completely out of schedule for Puerto Calero, this stop-over is cancelled (but a technical stop is authorized). A gate next to Lanzarote will provide an intermediate ranking.
This causes serious logistical problems since the skippers already have shipped food & gear to Lanzarote for the second leg of the race, which is of course fundamentally different from the first (cancelled) leg.

So this time the Mini Transat will be disputed in one single leg of 3.600 NM (!), an absolute record. ETA in Point ŗ Pitre: around December 1st.

I don't know much about the racing scene but its obvious that in Europe there is a battle between IRC and ORC for supremacy. Some years ago there was the intention to make from the two a single universal ratting but installed interests have been slowing the process. I believe that it will happen someday, sooner or later.

Let me point out that Ker boats have been dominating IRC on the top class on the world scene, including all, except the states were PHRF is still an obstacle to boat development and to fast boats. Both the other two ratting are more accurate by an order of magnitude.

I guess that racing market in US is as low as the market for performance cruisers. Most European brands that make them don't even give themselves the trouble of trying to sell them there and the Asiatic market is a lot more important than the American one : they sell more there.).

Like in the world of motor racing US seems to want to remain isolated and have its particular type of races while the rest of the world is sharing the main championships. Isolationism is never a good thing for development.

I believe that the more important single measure to alter the situation is to reserve PHRF for small club races and abolish that ratting on all medium and main ones, ratting them only in IRC (or ORC). That would allow the faster boats to win them all. But I guess that the Americans like too much to see Westsails 32 and the like winning races. Most Americans have old slow cruising boats ot performance boats fro other eras and they like to see old boats winning. That give them the sensation they have fast boats.

Believe it or not a owner of a Westsail 32, supposedly a very experienced sailor with experience in 150 different sailboats and more than 200 000Nm said this about the Westsail 32 performance in very light winds (3.1K):

"Does anyone here really believe that a Farr 38, Elan, or Figaro 35 would be able to do a lot better? Myth #1) The W-32 canít point. In fact, under exactly identical conditions, it will point equal to the average 30í racer cruiser. Myth #2) The W-32 canít run. In fact it runs faster than most 36í racer cruisers."

and fact is that many American sailors believe this kind of crap: After all the W32 was won major races

Regards

Paulo

Regards

Paulo

Well, that would certainly explain the huge W32 class in this year's TJV.

I think you have captured the American attitude quite well, and all my Canadian friends will agree with you (and even more so when it comes to American disdain for solo racing). The U.S. is primarily the land of "Beer Can" racing, a perfectly fun pasttime that does not require much effort.

Before someone attacks me by listing all the great American racing sailors / programs, let me say: "Well, of course, in a country with > 300M inhabitants you are bound to get a few great, passionate sailors." But my point is that the American racing landscape is ruled by the law of conservation - i.e., make sure that every boat on the water has the potential to win, regardless of how old or how obsolete the design (e.g., IOR).

The net impact of this attitude is that the evolution of yacht design is being driven by European and South American designers, and even great American designers, like Mark Mills, ply their trade overseas. Note: I'm talking about race boats and performance cruisers. There are still great cruising designs being done in the U.S., but the emphasis is not on performance.

Let me also allow two caveats to my rant: Melges and J/Boats. Both use American designers and both have developed and produced extremely successful racing and performance cruising boats. The irony, of course, is that their premier boats of those types are primarily successful in Europe (M24, M32, J/111, J/109), not in the U.S.

Anyway, enough ranting. I am more concerned right now about the decision to have a 1-leg MT race. Is it even possible to carry enough water and food on a 6.50 to make it from Sada to Pointe a Pitre, and still perform properly? Hard to imagine how the boats will be able to sustain a plane in the early days, even with everything stacked in the transom. But, I suppose there is no alternative and certainly better than canceling the event altogether. Oh well...

What do you expect from a crewed racing boat? The design is made taking that into consideration.

Regards

Paulo

Yes, I know. But still I somethimes wonder why? To be abel to bring all your friends and then some?

And connecting to the ever ongoing discussion on keeping weight down, on a reach all this weight is not doing much good and easily amounts to more than the weight of all my cruising extras and even a decent interior.

Yes, I know. But still I somethimes wonder why? To be abel to bring all your friends and then some?

And connecting to the ever ongoing discussion on keeping weight down, on a reach all this weight is not doing much good and easily amounts to more than the weight of all my cruising extras and even a decent interior.

Anders

On a reach that weight will work well, except on very light winds. See it as moving ballast. sitting on the opposite side of heeling they are maintaining the boat more vertical where it sails with less drag and on stronger winds they allow more sail to be carried without reefing. also they can move to the bow (light winds) or to the stern when going downwind with stronger winds giving the boat a perfect balance on any conditions.

They work like water ballast in a boat with several ballast tanks but they change the position of the ballast much more quickly

In fact I think that the weight and number of crew should be penalized on what regards ratting. that would contribute to better boats, more adapted to cruising.

Things seem to be going in the right direction since a duo crewed boat won the last Fastnet, a first, showing not only that modern boats can work better than the old ones with a short crew but also that the ratting is on the right direction.

However I think that they are one considering ratting benefices to duo sailed boats. If they had on a big boat 3 instead of 15, it would not make any difference. I think that should be reviewed.

It seems as expensive as the ones in the market already. Probably it has to be expensive but even so it is much better than a generator and in boats that don't use a lot of power and sail a lot it will be perfect.

The way I sail and with top batteries (AGM), a big alternator and a regulator I really don't need it. 45m a day of engine work is enough to keep all systems working and I do that motoring a bit when I leave the anchorage and motoring a bit while searching for a place to anchor and of course there are days where there is not any wind and you have to motor longer.

I don't think that the cost of that system is justifiable for coastal cruising where a maximized electrical charging system will cost about the same price and is more reliable and have other advantages.

Regarding Oceanic sailing, transats or more extensive navigation in a fast boat, it is the right tool and allows all systems working without never turning the engine on. While on shorter daily legs on coastal cruising, typically 5/9 hours you can steer for considerable time and not use the auto-pilot. when you sail non stop 24 hours the auto pilot is used more and the consumption is higher, besides those 45m to charge the batteries regards day sailing, at night the consumption is bigger.

Anyway, most cruisers I know pass much more time on anchorage then while sailing, most passing several days on each anchorage or port. For those the system will not work at all.

If I decide to cross the Atlantic I will mount one of those systems that on fast boats that can sail most of the time are pretty much the thing to have, unless you want to motor without any need to do so.

Heavier cruising boats, that typically have a much bigger tankage, need a lot more wind to make a decent speed and on a crossing they would use a lot more the engine so that system does not make much sense. If you have the tankage and a slower boat, unless someone wants to circumnavigate, the cost of the extra diesel used on one or two transats to charge the batteries will be a lot less than the cost of that system.

On a reach that weight will work well, except on very light winds. See it as moving ballast. sitting on the opposite side of heeling they are maintaining the boat more vertical where it sails with less drag and on stronger winds they allow more sail to be carried without reefing. also they can move to the bow (light winds) or to the stern when going downwind with stronger winds giving the boat a perfect balance on any conditions.

They work like water ballast in a boat with several ballast tanks but they change the position of the ballast much more quickly

In fact I think that the weight and number of crew should be penalized on what regards ratting. that would contribute to better boats, more adapted to cruising.

Things seem to be going in the right direction since a duo crewed boat won the last Fastnet, a first, showing not only that modern boats can work better than the old ones with a short crew but also that the ratting is on the right direction.

However I think that they are one considering ratting benefices to duo sailed boats. If they had on a big boat 3 instead of 15, it would not make any difference. I think that should be reviewed.

Regards

Paulo

Under IRC there are limits to the number of crew a boat can carry for a given rating, though obviously one can exploit this rule by swapping out 12 sumo wrestlers for 12 school children when the wind goes light.

Practically speaking, of course, it is not easy, at the non-professional level, to find suitable - i.e., competent - crew in adequate numbers to play that game.

By choosing to post the reply above you agree to the rules you agreed to when joining Sailnet.
Click Here to view those rules.

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the SailNet Community forums, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.Please note: After entering 3 characters a list of Usernames already in use will appear and the list will disappear once a valid Username is entered.

User Name:

Password

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:

Confirm Password:

Email Address

Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:

Log-in

User Name

Remember Me?

Password

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.